WASHINGTON  The Washington Redskins won another legal victory Friday in a 17-year fight with a group of American Indians who argue the football team's trademark is racially offensive.

The decision issued Friday by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington doesn't address the main question of racism at the center of the case. Instead, it upholds the lower court's decision in favor of the football team on a legal technicality.

The court agreed that the seven Native Americans waited too long to challenge the trademark first issued in 1967. They initially won  the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office panel canceled the trademarks in 1999  but they've suffered a series of defeats in the federal courts since then.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly overturned that decision in 2003 in part because the suit was filed decades after the first Redskins trademark was issued. The U.S. Court of Appeals then sent the case back to Kollar-Kotelly, noting that the youngest of the plaintiffs was only 1-year-old in 1967 and therefore could not have taken legal action at the time.

Kollar-Kotelly issued a new ruling last summer that rejected that argument. She wrote that the youngest plaintiff turned 18 in 1984 and therefore waited almost eight years after coming of age to join the lawsuit.

The judge did not address whether the Redskins name is offensive or racist.

Other indian based team names (Chiefs, Braves, Warriors) even ones names after tribes (FSU Seminoles) are not offensive at all, imho. They highlight a positive aspect of indian historical culture. Redskin though, is a slur. Plain and simple.

Redskin a sign of admiration? That’s so pathetic it isn’t even funny as a joke.

Other indian based team names (Chiefs, Braves, Warriors) even ones names after tribes (FSU Seminoles) are not offensive at all, imho. They highlight a positive aspect of indian historical culture. Redskin though, is a slur. Plain and simple.”

Why is ‘red skin’ a slur? My Cherokee ancestors were never ashamed of the color of their skin.

Those Cherokees must have been damned prolific, or at the very least they must have raped every white woman in the country to have so many people claiming Cherokee heritage. I can never bring up the subject of American Indians without someone chiming in and claiming to be "25 percent full-blooded Cherokee" or some other such nonsense.

14
posted on 05/15/2009 10:22:08 AM PDT
by Mr Ramsbotham
(A fine head of hair lends beauty to a handsome face, and terror to an ugly one.)

“I can never bring up the subject of American Indians without someone chiming in and claiming to be “25 percent full-blooded Cherokee” or some other such nonsense. “

I understand what you’re saying. I was raised being told I was part Cherokee, but never took it to heart much because everyone I ran into seemed to claim the same thing.....until I really researched it and found it was true. Fact is, there are millions and millions of us who are part Cherokee.

I always though “redskin” was right up there with “injun” definitely in the slur area. Of course there is no right not to be offended, people who don’t like the team’s name should root against them (really easy to do these days because they stink), boycott them, boycott the whole league if they want, but don’t make it a legal matter.

A local high school has the name ‘redskins.’ I have wondered about someone yelling, “racism.” Then dump Native Americans completely. Change the logo to redskin on the necks of cowboys. Or change to a redskined reptile like snake or lizzard. “Indians” will be forgotten as nothing more than people in old westerns.

We were at Progressive Field in Cleveland (for the first time) in late April for the Boston Red Sox vs Cleveland Indians series. I was surprised that Chief Wahoo is still pretty prominent in the team stores as a mascot, but disappointed that he is not the ACTUAL mascot for the team. They had some strange pink or purple creature named "Slider", I think. Very minor league mascot, IMO. I assume they had to create Slider to downplay the un-PC Chief Wahoo.

32
posted on 05/15/2009 10:40:16 AM PDT
by nutmeg
(DemocRATs: The party of tax cheats and other assorted crooks)

Congress shall make no law(s) respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Offense is undeniably in the eye of the beholder. I do not think I have a right to substitute my judgment about whether or not you should be offended. You have a right to be offended if you want to. The question is, assuming you exercise your option to be offended, should I cede to you the right to invoke the power of the law to enforce your subjective feelings against me?

"Redskin" is no more a "slur" than "Whiteskin" (me), and I do not feel slurred. Now "Whitey" or "White Boy" I would find offensive, but, as we all know, due to Free Speech, you DO NOT have the right to not be offended.

Grow a thicker skin, or you won't be able to enjoy life. You'll end up spending your life being "offended" and thinking everyone's out to get you.

A couple of years ago I went to a city council meeting where a group of Indians were protesting something. They were wearing buckskin and had the braided hair. I got to talking to them and found out I have more Indian in me than any of them (both grandmothers were Indian.)

Anyway, I don't find the term Redskin offensive, anymore than I find the term Redneck, which can also be applied to me, offensive. I thought the people at the meeting were pretty sad, as they run around playing Indian, acting like an idealized history of riding the plains and hunting buffalo is coming back.

Also, I would mention that one of the most famous Indians of all time:

was a Cowboy, and spent almost all of his career fighting the Redskins.

46
posted on 05/15/2009 11:07:35 AM PDT
by Richard Kimball
(We're all criminals. They just haven't figured out what some of us have done yet.)

As a Cowboy fan, I hate the Redskins (on the field), but I would be the biggest die hard ‘skin fan when it comes to them keeping their name and tradition. Hate the team, love the franchise. Isn’t that what the New Testament speaks to??

When Houston got another football franchise, I was hoping that they’d go to one of the suggested names, Roughnecks, instead of the almost generic Texans. That’s one of the things that’s become boring about team mascots; almost everything is generic now.

49
posted on 05/15/2009 11:14:46 AM PDT
by Richard Kimball
(We're all criminals. They just haven't figured out what some of us have done yet.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.